Case Application 4-A THE BEST OF INTENTIONS
Alison Quimby, HR Director of a small manufacturing company, was surprised when Ramona Ruiz, a Quality Control Inspector, said that her supervisor has been whispering comments in her ear about how good she looks in her uniform and wonders what she wears underneath it. “I’ve told him to knock it off a million times, but it’s getting worse and I just dread going to work.
Can you do something to help?” Quimby felt awful for Ruiz and wanted to protect her from further harassment while she investigated the complaint, so she asked her to work in the warehouse until further notice so she could investigate the situation and speak to her supervisor. An hour later, Quimby was called to the warehouse by the warehouse supervisor Bert Blackwater.
Blackwater believed that Anton Mueller, a warehouse employee, had intentionally broken an expensive piece of equipment after learning he wouldn’t receive any overtime because Ramona Ruiz is now working in the warehouse.
Mueller had a long history of discipline issues and gripes. He had previously filed a complaint for age discrimination after his last performance appraisal meeting when Quimby warned him that he was in danger of losing his job for numerous performance deficiencies.
During a disciplinary meeting in Quimby’s office, Mueller started swearing at Quimby loudly, calling her names, and insulting her intelligence in extremely derogatory and sexist terms. Quimby explained that due to his prior disciplinary actions and poor performance appraisals, she was terminating his employment.
Mueller stormed out of her office, shouting “Did you forget about my discrimination complaint? I’m going to prove you’re out to get me. This isn’t over and you’re going to pay big time for your mistake!” The next day Quimby completed her investigation of Ramona Ruiz’s complaint.
After interviewing Ruiz, the supervisor, and others in their department, Quimby determined that the supervisor had made several inappropriate comments to Ruiz, but her estimate that she told him to knock it off a “million times” turned out to be a total of twice in the last week.
The supervisor was suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training upon his return. He apologized, agreed to those terms, and left quietly. Quimby wasn’t surprised a few days later when she was informed that Anton Mueller had filed a retaliation complaint with the EEOC claiming his firing was in retaliation for the age discrimination complaint he filed.
When she explained the situation to the company’s legal counsel, she also explained how she had handled the problem between Ramona Ruiz and her supervisor. The attorney seemed concerned and asked if Ruiz was still in the warehouse and where the supervisor was. Quimby explained that Ruiz was back in quality control after spending 2 days in the warehouse where she earned her regular pay rate. The supervisor had not returned to work yet.
The attorney told Quimby that he would call her back in a couple of hours, closing with “we need to handle Ramona and her supervisor correctly or she could have a more authentic retaliation claim than Mueller.”
Questions
Explain the concept of employer retaliation as it applies to equal employment laws. Evaluate the grounds for Anton’s claim of retaliation. Does Ramona have grounds for a retaliation claim? (LO 1, 2, 6, 7)
Evaluate Alison’s handling of the supervisor accused of sexual harassment so far. How should Alison handle the supervisor’s return to work? (LO 1, 6) Develop a policy for Alison that will help to prevent further sexual harassment and explain how to implement it. (LO 1, 6)
Research: Are retaliation complaints in the United States decreasing or on the rise? Explain some reasons given for the change in number of complaints. What can employers do to prevent retaliation claims? (LO 1, 7)
Case Application 4-B PREHIRE ASSESSMENTS MISS THE TARGET
Target Corp. agreed to pay $2.8 million to 3,000 applicants in a settlement with the EEOC. The applicants took preemployment assessments for management positions. The assessments seemed neutral on the face, but analysis determined that they disproportionately screened out black, Asian, and female applicants. Target also put selected applicants for high‐level management positions through assessments that were administered and evaluated by psychologists. The EEOC explained that this qualifies as a preemployment medical exam and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To comply with the ADA, medical exams may only be administered after a job offer is made, and only to determine the applicant’s fitness for the demands of the position. It must be administered to every individual, not just selected applicants. The EEOC also found that Target failed to maintain adequate records of their hiring practices. This made it difficult for the EEOC to assess the impact of the hiring practices and extent of the discriminatory effect. The case never went to court. The EEOC is required to go through a conciliation process prior to filing a lawsuit against employers in court. Target cooperated with the EEOC’s investigation and settled prior to going to court, although a Target spokesperson said that the company continues “to firmly believe that no improper behavior occurred regarding these assessments. However, in light of the fact that none of the assessments cited by the EEOC are being used today and given the significant resources that would be required to litigate this case, Target agreed to a settlement with the EEOC.”74 As a result of the complaint and settlement, Target also agreed to:
Stop using the assessments.
Implement a HRIS applicant tracking system to ensure that sufficient data is collected to disprove or prove discriminatory practices in the future.
Conducted studies on all assessments to determine if they are valid predictors of the ability to do the job and do not create an adverse impact.
The EEOC issued a statement applauding Target for their cooperation and for making these changes in hiring procedures. An EEOC spokesperson said “This resolution demonstrates the benefits of working with the EEOC and serves as a model for businesses committed to effective and lawful selection procedures.” Target still denies having any improper hiring practices.
Questions
Target’s assessments were demonstrated to have the ability to discriminate on the basis of gender and race. Which of other groups covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are most likely to see unintentional discrimination from employment testing? Explain your choices. (LO 1)
Evaluate the claim that the psychological test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. (LO 2)
Explain the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and adverse impact. How could Target’s assessments have created an adverse impact on applicants for managerial positions? How could the assessments seem neutral, yet be discriminatory? (LO 4)
How does adverse (disparate) treatment apply to the assessments administered by the psychologists? Explain how the disparate treatment may lead to discrimination. (LO 5)
Evaluate the ethics of Target denying having any improper hiring practices while settling with the EEOC and applicants for $2.8 million. If they were not guilty of discrimination, should they have gone to court? What do you think of their rationale for accepting the settlement? (LO 5
In this case, the journey from complaint to resolution took over 2 years. Explain the procedure that was followed and why it may have taken so long. (LO 5)
